Rachel GuillotFilm Annotation 9Who Killed the Electric Car?
The film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” was directed by Chris Paine and released in 2006. Its intention was to show the good qualities of the electric car and the matrix of problems that led to its demise as well as determine who is at fault. The good qualities include its lack of dependence on oil, zero-emissions, and low-maintenance.
The automobile industry is a major environmental problem by itself, it adds to creating smog, terrible air quality, CO2, which leads to Global Warming and glaciers melting, lung disease, etc. Though the electric car [EV1] had so many good qualities, each of these qualities put someone out of commission. Oil companies have a huge vested interest in gasoline cars because with decreased gasoline usage, the prices of oil drop and the companies lose business. They sabotaged the project because they were afraid this trend would continue from California across the United States. With many government officials with interest in oil companies mandates on fuel efficiency were nearly impossible to pass. Our dependence upon foreign oil would also be eliminated by the electric car. The way the government policies work, they create mandates [such as the Zero-Emissions Mandate] that can be argued and sued by an industry and reversed. The car companies argued the zero-emissions mandate and demanded a memorandum that allowed them to essentially build the cars as they saw need and determine that need as they saw fit. The advertisements for the electric cars were not as compelling as those for the other cars and people were forced to jump through hoops in order to obtain a lease [with no option to buy]. During the CARB court case, the allotted speaking time for each side was unequal. In the United States the car companies have too much influence in decisions made regarding technologies. The EV1s did not require as much car maintenance because of the lack of an internal combustion engine thus decreasing its profit for the car company [no need for replacement parts such as oil filters, etc]. The hydrogen fuel cell was marketed very strongly but is not as energy efficient as the EV1. As consumers we are too cautious about alternative technologies and too dependent upon the norms and traditional models. In contradiction, people will buy anything you work hard enough at to convince them of and there was not enough effort that went into the advertisements if they wanted the product to sell.
This film used historical images and video to provide a view into the past to show that we have not evolved as much as we think we have and are still struggling against many of the same problems. The images from the inside of the electric car as it was driven through the streets were also compelling and the interviews by celebrities could prove to be convincing by having known figures speak on behalf of the electric car. I believe the insertion of interviews from other talk shows and the anecdotal videos with sarcasm and humor were effective to keep the viewer interested. The use of the former employee as a way to tie the film pieces together was particularly effective in providing a cohesive final product and it was interesting to follow her story from inside to outside the company. The chapters of “Who Killed the Electric Car” at the end were good in breaking up the different suspects and I enjoyed the guilty/not guilty determinations following. The images of the arrest were more convincing because the people arrested were the ones whose stories were followed throughout the movie.
The parts of the film not as convincing for me was that there was a little too much plugging of the electric car through images, the film was a little too verbally focused as soon as the focus was taken off the electric car qualities. It was possible to only listen to the film and still get almost as much out of it as paying full attention to the film. Towards the end, it seemed to get duller as well; beyond around minute 45 I lost interest in the film. This could partly have been due to the fact that I was watching it later at night but the film Food Inc that I watched at a similar time during the day, held my attention throughout the entire movie. This film was not as compelling as other films I’ve seen and didn’t draw me in as others have.
This film is best directed towards an audience of middle to high school students and adults who are consumers in the automobile industry in order to change the way they think about the items they buy. Educationally, it would work in a school setting but I believe it would need to be shortened, or more anecdotes added to be particularly effective. The images at the beginning of the car racing around would be effective in convincing males of the legitimacy of it in my opinion. As an education tool, it could be used as a debate project to argue the different points of view and thus more as a research project as well.
A few of the solutions presented by this film were to create strong policies that force action from industries, to market the alternative energy solutions with more vigor than the current sources, to fight on behalf of these alternative vehicles [though the failure of this fight to achieve anything was slightly detrimental to the film], and to protest and fight for alternative industries because the corporations will be more likely to respond to well known and advertised desires. The staged funeral of the EV1s created publicity on the issue. Governmental federal policies need to change regarding fuel standards and CAFÉ standards, to raise the minimum fuel economy and decrease our dependence on oil. CARB [California Air Resources Board] needs to decrease its affiliation with other competing companies and provide unbiased support, and we [as consumers] should demand for a “Plug-In America” meaning plug-in hybrid cars, wind and sun energy, thin-film solar, and do-it yourself conversion. We need to look at our role as consumers and fit that role to environmental necessities.
I was interested to find off links from the Who Killed the Electric Car website an organization called NEV [Neighborhood Electric Vehicles] Portal which provides information on street legal electric vehicles which include modified golf carts, electric ATVs, and more. It gives information on IRS tax credits available. I also looked more into Plug In America and found that some states give up to 50%, or $6000 as electric incentives. Their “Vehicle Tracker” shows electric vehicles, details of them and their expected market date. For instance Audi has an electric sports car expected to be release in 2011 that has a 154 mile range and 124 mile per hour top speed.
The film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” was directed by Chris Paine and released in 2006. Its intention was to show the good qualities of the electric car and the matrix of problems that led to its demise as well as determine who is at fault. The good qualities include its lack of dependence on oil, zero-emissions, and low-maintenance.
The automobile industry is a major environmental problem by itself, it adds to creating smog, terrible air quality, CO2, which leads to Global Warming and glaciers melting, lung disease, etc. Though the electric car [EV1] had so many good qualities, each of these qualities put someone out of commission. Oil companies have a huge vested interest in gasoline cars because with decreased gasoline usage, the prices of oil drop and the companies lose business. They sabotaged the project because they were afraid this trend would continue from California across the United States. With many government officials with interest in oil companies mandates on fuel efficiency were nearly impossible to pass. Our dependence upon foreign oil would also be eliminated by the electric car. The way the government policies work, they create mandates [such as the Zero-Emissions Mandate] that can be argued and sued by an industry and reversed. The car companies argued the zero-emissions mandate and demanded a memorandum that allowed them to essentially build the cars as they saw need and determine that need as they saw fit. The advertisements for the electric cars were not as compelling as those for the other cars and people were forced to jump through hoops in order to obtain a lease [with no option to buy]. During the CARB court case, the allotted speaking time for each side was unequal. In the United States the car companies have too much influence in decisions made regarding technologies. The EV1s did not require as much car maintenance because of the lack of an internal combustion engine thus decreasing its profit for the car company [no need for replacement parts such as oil filters, etc]. The hydrogen fuel cell was marketed very strongly but is not as energy efficient as the EV1. As consumers we are too cautious about alternative technologies and too dependent upon the norms and traditional models. In contradiction, people will buy anything you work hard enough at to convince them of and there was not enough effort that went into the advertisements if they wanted the product to sell.
This film used historical images and video to provide a view into the past to show that we have not evolved as much as we think we have and are still struggling against many of the same problems. The images from the inside of the electric car as it was driven through the streets were also compelling and the interviews by celebrities could prove to be convincing by having known figures speak on behalf of the electric car. I believe the insertion of interviews from other talk shows and the anecdotal videos with sarcasm and humor were effective to keep the viewer interested. The use of the former employee as a way to tie the film pieces together was particularly effective in providing a cohesive final product and it was interesting to follow her story from inside to outside the company. The chapters of “Who Killed the Electric Car” at the end were good in breaking up the different suspects and I enjoyed the guilty/not guilty determinations following. The images of the arrest were more convincing because the people arrested were the ones whose stories were followed throughout the movie.
The parts of the film not as convincing for me was that there was a little too much plugging of the electric car through images, the film was a little too verbally focused as soon as the focus was taken off the electric car qualities. It was possible to only listen to the film and still get almost as much out of it as paying full attention to the film. Towards the end, it seemed to get duller as well; beyond around minute 45 I lost interest in the film. This could partly have been due to the fact that I was watching it later at night but the film Food Inc that I watched at a similar time during the day, held my attention throughout the entire movie. This film was not as compelling as other films I’ve seen and didn’t draw me in as others have.
This film is best directed towards an audience of middle to high school students and adults who are consumers in the automobile industry in order to change the way they think about the items they buy. Educationally, it would work in a school setting but I believe it would need to be shortened, or more anecdotes added to be particularly effective. The images at the beginning of the car racing around would be effective in convincing males of the legitimacy of it in my opinion. As an education tool, it could be used as a debate project to argue the different points of view and thus more as a research project as well.
A few of the solutions presented by this film were to create strong policies that force action from industries, to market the alternative energy solutions with more vigor than the current sources, to fight on behalf of these alternative vehicles [though the failure of this fight to achieve anything was slightly detrimental to the film], and to protest and fight for alternative industries because the corporations will be more likely to respond to well known and advertised desires. The staged funeral of the EV1s created publicity on the issue. Governmental federal policies need to change regarding fuel standards and CAFÉ standards, to raise the minimum fuel economy and decrease our dependence on oil. CARB [California Air Resources Board] needs to decrease its affiliation with other competing companies and provide unbiased support, and we [as consumers] should demand for a “Plug-In America” meaning plug-in hybrid cars, wind and sun energy, thin-film solar, and do-it yourself conversion. We need to look at our role as consumers and fit that role to environmental necessities.
I was interested to find off links from the Who Killed the Electric Car website an organization called NEV [Neighborhood Electric Vehicles] Portal which provides information on street legal electric vehicles which include modified golf carts, electric ATVs, and more. It gives information on IRS tax credits available. I also looked more into Plug In America and found that some states give up to 50%, or $6000 as electric incentives. Their “Vehicle Tracker” shows electric vehicles, details of them and their expected market date. For instance Audi has an electric sports car expected to be release in 2011 that has a 154 mile range and 124 mile per hour top speed.